I do believe preservation does restrict our Human attachment with nature. For a good amount of people, separation from nature can be life changing (in a negative way). I personally have a connection with nature and if someone tried to take that away from me I would be a different person, and not one I’d particularly enjoy. I think conservation is more logical, and can maintain human’s positive connection with nature. What’s the point if we cannot enjoy the gifts bestowed upon us (and other life forms) from the earth? We can treasure it and try to conserve it and fight for it, but I don’t think we should have to be forced to be secluded from it because someone thinks it is too valuable to be tampered with. I do agree that nature can be fragile and needs protection, but not of that extent. Humans were born into nature, as were other creatures. It is our birthright to be able to indulge in the fascinating aspects of nature. Aldo Leopold once said that conservation is a state of harmony between men and land. I believe we need to hold true to that statement. I think only that if a part of the environment is truly in need of protection shall we turn to preservation. For instance, certain forests that may contain endangered species or certain plants that have medicinal properties. In the Pacific Northwest there lies a tree called the Pacific yew, a slow-growing tree. This special tree contained promising treatments for ovarian and breast cancer, but wasn’t considered an important tree because people at that time (that burned these tree’s right after “clearcutting”) didn’t realize it had such amazing medicinal properties. These parts of nature, in my opinion, should be subject to preservation. Otherwise, I believe that we should be able to relish what good healthy parts of the environment we have left.